2012 (2) TMI 140 - SC - Indian Laws

2G Spectrum Scam whether a complaint can be filed by a citizen for prosecuting a public servant for an offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 High Court dismissed the petition on ground that investigation is in progress hence decision on the application of the appellant either to grant or refuse the sanction cannot be taken - Held that - There is no provision either in the 1988 Act or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) which bars a citizen from filing a complaint for prosecution of a public servant who is alleged to have committed an offense. Further, while considering the issue regarding grant or refusal of sanction, the only thing which the Competent Authority is required to see is whether the material placed by the complainant or the investigating agency prima facie discloses commission of an offense. If satisfied, then it is required to grant sanction. The Competent Authority cannot undertake a detailed inquiry to decide whether or not the allegations made against the public servant are true. In Vineet Narain s case, time-limit of three months for grant of sanction for prosecution was granted with additional one month, however in present case, due to failure of officers in the PMO and the Ministry of Law and Justice, to apprise respondent No.1 about seriousness of allegations made by the appellant matter lingered for a period of more than one year. In result, order of High Court is set aside, and right granted to appellant to file a complaint for prosecuting respondent No.2. At the same time, it is directed that in future every Competent Authority shall take appropriate action on the representation made by a citizen for sanction of the prosecution of a public servant strictly in accordance with the direction contained in Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998) SC and the guidelines framed by the CVC - Decided in favor of petitioner

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a citizen can file a complaint for prosecuting a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Whether the authority competent to sanction prosecution of a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is required to take an appropriate decision within a specified time.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Filing of Complaint by a Citizen:
The Supreme Court examined whether a citizen has the right to file a complaint for prosecuting a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the 1988 Act). The Court referred to the Constitution Bench judgment in A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak, which established that anyone can set the criminal law in motion unless explicitly restricted by statute. The Court emphasized that the Prevention of Corruption Act does not bar a citizen from filing a complaint. Therefore, the appellant had the right to file a complaint for prosecuting the public servant in question.

2. Requirement of Sanction for Prosecution:
The Court addressed whether the competent authority must take an appropriate decision on sanctioning prosecution within the time specified by the Supreme Court in Vineet Narain v. Union of India and the guidelines issued by the Central Government and the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). The Court noted that the competent authority is required to decide on the grant of sanction within three months, with an additional month allowed if consultation with the Attorney General or any other law officer is necessary. The Court highlighted that the competent authority must act promptly and cannot delay the decision indefinitely, as this would undermine the rule of law and public confidence in the judicial system.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Filing of Complaint by a Citizen:
The Supreme Court affirmed that there is no provision in the 1988 Act or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) that bars a citizen from filing a complaint against a public servant. The Court referred to the judgment in A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak, which stated that anyone can initiate criminal proceedings unless specifically prohibited by statute. The Court reiterated that the principle of locus standi is foreign to criminal jurisprudence, and the right to initiate proceedings cannot be restricted without an explicit statutory provision. Therefore, the appellant had the right to file a complaint for prosecuting the public servant under the 1988 Act.

2. Requirement of Sanction for Prosecution:
The Court examined the provisions of Section 19 of the 1988 Act, which requires prior sanction for prosecuting a public servant. The Court referred to the judgment in Vineet Narain v. Union of India, which directed that the competent authority must decide on the grant of sanction within three months, with an additional month allowed for consultation if necessary. The Court emphasized that the competent authority's decision must be based on whether the material presented prima facie discloses the commission of an offense. The Court clarified that the competent authority is not required to conduct a detailed inquiry but must act promptly and communicate its decision to the complainant. The Court criticized the delay in the present case and highlighted the need for timely action to uphold the rule of law and public confidence in the judicial system.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and declared that the appellant had the right to file a complaint for prosecuting the public servant. The Court emphasized that the competent authority must take appropriate action on representations for sanctioning prosecution in accordance with the directions in Vineet Narain v. Union of India and the CVC guidelines. The Court underscored the importance of timely decisions to prevent the erosion of public confidence in the judicial system.

← Previous Next →